Like the guitar playing though.
That dude can shred.
Wow. Actual talking in tongues.
Believe me folks, when Africa send us their angels, they're not sending us their best....
> Wow. Actual talking in tongues.
Amazing from the people that hate witchcraft and such things.
That, is awesome.
I also like the bloke wandering along in the background, oblivious to her ranting.
The sad thing though is that she: A) probably earns a huge amount of money from that nonsense. B) Has lots of political influence.
> That, is awesome. I also like the bloke wandering along in the background, oblivious to her ranting.
I assumed first time I saw a clip of this he was just a stage manager or something wandering around engrossed (or studiously ignoring the madness) but it looks like he's part of the show too, presumably silently pacing and praying for Trump. Nuts but I suppose there are worse ways to make a comfortable living.
Her first mistake was wearing the vibrating panties to work.
> Wow. Actual talking in tongues.
Although I don’t have experience of seeing people really speaking in tongues, there seems to be a scripted inauthenticity to this, as if she’s trying to give the impression that she is speaking in tongues but actually the sounds are phonetically easy for an English-speaking Westerner and she hasn’t “lost control” etc.... But I don’t really know what I am on about, to be fair
>Although I don’t have experience of seeing people really speaking in tongues
If they were traditional conservatives, they'd use traditional methods to test if she was talking on behalf of god or satan. I say we dunk her in a pond and see if she floats.
In other walks of life, ranting and speaking in tongues would earn you a referral to the community mental health team. In America, you get your own tv show.
I grew up in evangelical churches and have met many people who speak in tongues. Lots of them are genuine and wonderful people. She on the other hand is neither genuine or wonderful.
I dislike the whole mega church/TV vibe and struggle with the power that these people have access to. To me (as someone who tries to distance themselves from right wing evo’s but is still practicing Christianity) it’s a very disingenuous form of practicing the teaching of Jesus
> Yes .
> Amazing from the people that hate witchcraft and such things.
Why? When the Holy Spirit moves you...
Pentecostalism, including speaking in tongues, is as far as I can see pretty much genuine American religion, just like Jazz is the genuine original American art form. I believe there was really no speaking in tongues in any forms of Christianity until early twentieth century American revivalist Christianity.
> I grew up in evangelical churches and have met many people who claim to speak in tongues. Lots of them are genuinely deluded though wonderful people.
Seen on another site:
Person1 – God sent us Trump.
Person2 – Why, did he run out of Locusts?
Americans are lucky that the language of angels is comprised of syllables and sounds that English speakers can pronounce easily. What if angels spoke one of the African language that uses different kinds of clicking?
P.S. here is another remix:
I saw this and had to really check that it wasn't a parody, or that her words haven't been dubbed. She is a) insane or b) knowns how to make a ton of money from the stupid, the vulnerable and the gullible.
Jesus H Christ!
I'm just about to join, what I anticipate to be, a rather awkward business meeting. I might well give the auld 'speaking in tongues' thing a lash. See how I get on.
"I'm afraid that the project is definitely going to overrun schedule, budget, and expenses... I can appreciate that this news is both unwelcome and difficult for you to hear, however, before we delve into things much deeper, I'd first like to relay a few words from some corporate angel stakeholders..."
Class! Thanks for the reminder.
I've had numerous "spiritual" experiences at raves, never was I that out of it that I believed I could speak to angels.
A few years back I went to a Derren Brown show and at the end he took the audience through an "evangelical" experience. Hyperventilating and dancing in the aisles lead to euphoric feelings, this is a well known physical reaction that has nothing to do with the spirit filling you or being a conduit for angels. Shit like this boils my piss, it's just so obviously faked.
No problem. I'd forgotten about Baptazia for the last few years! Agreed, it's all a kind of feedback loop where the speaker fakes it (knowingly or otherwise) and then nobody in the audience wants to be the person who hasn't been blessed with the gift, and this, along with the crowd hysteria, kind of convinces them it's real.
Same here, I have met people speaking in tongues, both in the US and Europe who were genuine (i.e. able to fall into an actual religious trance without hoovering up industrial amounts of acid), but most of them also had genuine mental health issues.
In fact, if it were up to me, the ability and propensity to self delude you to the point of hearing spiritual voices should be classidfied as a mental illness in its own right.
She, however, is very much in control and faking her trance, which is even worse.
What about agnostics? Does a lack of commitment to decide on a possible delusion make them worse?
I think speaking in tongues is from Pentecost when tongues of fire descend and the believers speak different languages which they don’t know. Also in one of the Epistles it refers to “speaking in tongues of angels but not having love”, and also I think At Paul refers to It when talking about order of services. But yeah, it definitely has big tent Americana feel about it!
I was teaching sects and cults to my A level sociology students just to day and had mentioned Pentecostalism. I had been reading up and watching some videos at the weekend, so that's where I got the idea that although, just as you say, the story in the Bible is of the holy spirit coming down upon the disciples and making them speak in tongues, no Christians are recorded as actually practicing this until American revivalists started doing it. Not as extreme, but a bit like the Appalachian snake handling churches I guess!
And does Pentecostalism fall into a sect or a cult? I didn't know that about there being no written evidence (outside Biblical reference) for tongues before American revivalists. Have you got a citation for it, I'd be interested to read it. I've always found it jarred somewhat that something that is referred to as the least of the gifts was given so much emphasis (such as Paula White does) in Pente/evo circles. But then it's probably easier to speak in tongues than it is to make the blind see (but that sounds cynical....)
> Americans are lucky that the language of angels is comprised of syllables and sounds that English speakers can pronounce easily. What if angels spoke one of the African language that uses different kinds of clicking?
But then, I suppose if English was good enough for Jesus to write the Bible and the constitution with it's good enough for the rest of us.
This stuff is proof against the god of religion, not for it. As Hitchens said, what kind of half-assed omnipotence-seeking god would reveal themselves to remote and illiterate Arabs and not the Chinese who could read and were publishing books at the time.
Any voodoo in politics is bad stuff. Let us not dismiss that many political systems have stuff like this front and centre, like Iran, Saudi, India etc. The Dalai lama was apparently reincarnated into the position...
I don't disagree but I've never liked that Hitchens quote, it sounds a little bit snobbish and un-necessarily abrasive. Roman era Arabic society was sophisticated:
and the Chinese had their own 'gods' back then so in Chinese opinion exactly that had happened.
> And does Pentecostalism fall into a sect or a cult?
It's a good question, sect I would say - but this gets in to the problem of typologies in sociology anyway, and in particular the strong attraction to typologies from the A level sociology specification and, hence, from A level text books. I'm a bit suspicious that things that I'm sure all real live sociologists in the wild would say "well it's a bit more complicated and fuzzy than that" tend to get jammed in neat tables where you are either A or B for the following reasons in text books, because to be honest, the 17 year old mind doesn't deal with fuzziness and nuance very well.
Suffice to say, what newspapers tend to call "cults" to the majority of sociologists of religion are sects! What sociologists tend to consider cults often don't appear to be even very religious - Transcendental Meditation for example. And I would imagine Pentecostalism is well on its way to being just another boring old "denomination", like Methodism and many others before it, who are really just "cooled down" sects!
Being Hitchens everything had an agenda, and I didn't actually quote per se as he rolled that one out in various forms many times for different audiences - but I think his thrust was if god wanted to inform humanity for the sake of salvation he chose a hopeless way of doing it.
> I don't disagree but I've never liked that Hitchens quote, it sounds a little bit snobbish and un-necessarily abrasive. Roman era Arabic society was sophisticated:
Snobbishness and abrasiveness are Hitchens main defence mechanisms in debates so can't disagree there. Yet, as sophisticated as that corner of the Roman empire may have been it wasn't the best choice if the gig was to inform the one species the universe was created for that the clock was ticking on salvation. I think Hitchens was wryly commenting more on the xenophobic nature of kick starting religious movements than the Arabs themselves. The astronaut gods of Meso America likewise didn't land broadcast in the Indus valley.
> and the Chinese had their own 'gods' back then so in Chinese opinion exactly that had happened.
Yes, but gods for ovens, animal husbandry, winter and ancestors not agendas for the worlds salvation.
> if god wanted to inform humanity for the sake of salvation he chose a hopeless way of doing it.
The stock answer to those kind of points whenever I have challenged any believer is: God couldn't make it too obvious that he existed because if it was proved then you wouldn't have any choice but to believe, and God wants man to have free will and come to him though faith.
> > if god wanted to inform humanity for the sake of salvation he chose a hopeless way of doing it.
> The stock answer to those kind of points whenever I have challenged any believer is: God couldn't make it too obvious that he existed because if it was proved then you wouldn't have any choice but to believe, and God wants man to have free will and come to him though faith.
Ah yes, faith, the fake news of it's day. By letting 'authority' do the thinking for you I imagine quite an easy sell to to marginalized ethnic groups, just as it is today. The linking of free will to faith is perhaps the greatest the card the Abrahamic religions have played, nowhere else is it rebranded as a virtue. It's so obviously ethnic politics described as superstition it's no wonder it works. Faith is as much an avoidance of presented evidence as it is an inoculation against looking for any.
Personally it affronts me how it gives god a bad name. I don't think a concept of god is particularly insane, just the religionized version of it that's hijacked the debate. A quantum process whereby units of relative data flow along variable forms of spacetime to arrive a state of singular intelligence seems reasonable to me and requires no faith to achieve other than that future investigators of such things will over write the incorrectness's that came before. Trust would be a better term.
It's all the same tired old arguments. As Twain called it, "teaching a pig to sing".
I'm still not convinced it was such a bad place, for a start Judea and Israel weren't really Arabia and the Roman Levant was a huge trading hub and a crossroads between east and west, with access to the med, middle east, north africa, persia and even on to India, central asia and China. Anyway this is a tangent. I never really liked the millitant athiests who were all the rage a decade ago, a friend summed it up quite nicely: "you can believe there isn't a God without being an arse".
> ... a friend summed it up quite nicely: "you can believe there isn't a God without being an arse".
Hmmmmm... I can't help feeling that theists are on dodgy ground, where that argument is concerned, when you consider the amount of carnage that has been wrought by religious beliefs over the years?
I didn't say that there weren't arsehole theists! Anyway let's not go back there, UKC 10 years ago suffered from a plague of athiesm 'debates' which just went round and round forever. A dozen or so posters probably filled up half the forum.
Atheists don’t have a particularly good track record on bloody carnage particularly in the past 100years or so. I’m not sure believing in God makes you any more likely to commit an atrocity.
I disagree; I think that the time is ripe for the endless religious debates to be resurrected.
It'd make a refreshing change from the endless Brexit and pandemic threads... Maybe chuck a few E0 debate threads back into the mix, also.
Basically, Trump does not have a "spiritual advisor", he's got a sycophant that strokes his narcissistic ego by adding a nice dose of messianic complex. In return, she seems to get basically anything the evangelicals want out of the presidency.
I would not want anyone to be able and allowed to exert any influence over me based on their direct input from God, be that by hearing voices, having visions, etc.
On the other hand I know the importance of ritual for the cohesion of society etc., so by all means have a church or religion, just acknowledge that these are of human origin.
Ah the good old times!
I agree, Iron Age Palestine may not have been that bad by standards of the time, but other places had more going on. The Chinese had a unified script around then, so one would think a god wanting to get the word out would go for something more reliable across distance and time than hearsay - some both Christianity and Islam explicitly stumbled with within the first generation after their prophets.
I'd agree too that atheism a the Four Horseman time could be dickish, but it was set against the populist evangelical atmosphere of the time, something now thankfully passed and about the only maleficence Trump didn't resurrect during his term. I personally like some teeth to my antireligious debate, it's a dirty, toxic subject against organizations who happily exploit the good things in humanity, jocularity and light-hearted banter don't seem part of their agenda any more than fascism was beaten with flowers.
I still think the Levant wasn't such a bad place: they wrote in Greek which was understood in about half of the old world, and there was a strong tradition of distributing and collecting manuscripts (for example the great library of alexandria), as well as a dissemination of cultural ideas all over the Roman Empire and into Persia. Hitchens writing off the 1st century Levant as 'illiterate Arabs' shows quite a lot of ignorance. Anyway this is getting sidetracked!
> Hitchens writing off the 1st century Levant as 'illiterate Arabs' shows quite a lot of ignorance.
Whats the exact quote? Since that sounds more like a reference to Islam and specifically Mohammed who was illiterate.
You're right he was talking about Islam. I was confused as to why somebody educated like Hitchens would think the Levant was Arabic and illiterate in the 1st century!
Don't forget 9th century Cordoba... arguably for it's time one of the most enlightened places in world history.
> Atheists don’t have a particularly good track record on bloody carnage particularly in the past 100years or so. I’m not sure believing in God makes you any more likely to commit an atrocity.
You're correct, though it took atheism to piggy back on fascism, nationalism, revisionism and totalitarianism to do it. Religion reliably goes nuts over things like cartoons and which street you live on.
The atheist societies that went berserk did so as already massive, highly militarized societies and it was enforced state atheism lead by hysterical cults of personality. It's not much to do with the scientific atheism of guys like Sam Harris and is a false argument to lump the two together.
The argument gets made that those societies like the Khmer Rouges Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Ceausescu's Romania and Mao's China were all following religious blueprints, but I personally don't that explains enough. I think any rejection of religion that doesn't then adapt the principles of scientific method has been shown to be just as dangerous as religious states, and the Soviet Union and Maoist China demonstrate that. It's not the absence of religion that matters, it's the enactment of science and the principles of the enlightenment that does.
I recently read a book firmly locating the events of the Iliad in Kilikia, the area of today's Antalya on the South coast of Turkey. Names of local leaders, local wars and alliances, place names and geography all fit. Also, the conclusion was that Homer must have been a Greek writer employed by the local Assyrian governor.
The most interesting bit was a parallel synopsis of legends and myths as well as dateable historic events (e.g. the Assyirian siege of Jerusalem) as recalled in Egyptian and Assyrian court documents, the Iliad, and the Old Testament. Funny how even at the arse end of the bronze age politics employed fake news, spin and propaganda!
In any case, the Levant of that time was indeed a melting pot of cultures speaking and writing in multiple wide ranging trade languages including Assyrian, Persian, Luwian, Phoenikian. Greek and Latin came later.
The only bizarre choice seems to be to have the supposed son of god speak (but likely not write) Aramaic, a language that had hardly any reach at all beyond the Jordan valley and adjacent areas of Syria!
I'd agree with all that, including Hitchens' propensity to shape an argument in that way.
Yes we are sidetracking things, as fascinating as they are, so lets leave it, though no doubt the chance to reraise the topic will show itself again soon enough. Till then.
That Trump women eh, witchdoctor in the Whitehouse.
Even science can be subject to political distortion... just look at Gupta on covid. Worse still science and industry brought us social media where any old shit is transferred with maximum population risk and no penalty to the service provider. Modern democracy requires constant vigilance and scepticism and maximum educational focus on this. The common problem in all of these historic abuses is the elites control of power, the particular dogma is just a tool. Back to Trump:
> I think any rejection of religion that doesn't then adapt the principles of scientific method has been shown to be just as dangerous as religious states, and the Soviet Union and Maoist China demonstrate that. It's not the absence of religion that matters, it's the enactment of science and the principles of the enlightenment that does.
Personally, I think it seems to 'fall apart' when people forget certain aspects of morality, like treating one another with compassion, doing to others as we'd have done to ourselves is common in all the religions, and it's how none religious humans live more harmoniously too.
That tolerance must extend to the way atheists talk of law abiding citizens who happen to be religious. It's rank hypocrisy to spread hate of all a religion just because some hateful people claim that religion as motivation. If religion is a fairy story leading to weird hatefulness, being really angry from a position of faith in no faith is equally bizzare.
Disagree. The religionists have tilted the playing field in their favour, and can expect no tolerance before that is changed. Any idiocy is protected as long as you declare it to stem from "faith", as if this magically prevented ideas from being damaging, idiotic, discriminatory, risible, and a host of other negative properties.
There is no justification whatsoever to give religion a preferred status over all other ideas, and to continue to do so despite their being no basis in fact for religion is to spit on every progress we have made since freeing ourselves from the inellectual shackles of religion starting during the age of enlightment.
Edit: It would at least be consistent if you extended the same protection to, say, Marxism Hegelianism, or Epicureanism. However, the idiocy of making these sets of ideas exempt from criticism or ridicule would be too obvious.
> I'm still not convinced it was such a bad place,
Yeah, and just look at the outcomes: approximately 2 billion people, spread across almost every country on Earth consider themselves Christian. If it's about bums on seats God picked better than Brahma, and loads better than Odin!
Probably somebodies mum.
That's interesting, and I'm not surprised that it wasn't invented out of whole cloth 100 odd years ago, but the pre-20th century references aren't really of it being a part of communal worship - perhaps with the exception of Mormons in the 19th are they? The Mormon example might actually explain why it pops up as a method of worship in the US, not in any European revivalist movements or other sects.
> If it's about bums on seats God picked better than Brahma, and loads better than Odin!
Unless you are going for the omniscient god though it was a whole bunch of gambles. First the Roman Empire deciding to select it (vs strong competition) which resulted in it getting embedded into Europe and hence, after several centuries of being a backwater, being able to spread with those countries colonial efforts.
Its actually interesting just how many religions sprung up in that area.
I know full well you disagree. I certainly never proposed putting religion above other ideas but I do believe in our legal position of freedom of worship that fully complies with the law. I have nothing against ridicule or comedy either but think that normal UK broadcast limits are sensible on this. On the other side of such arguments militant atheists saying all of religion is evil I think are just as dangerous long term as the religious nuts who won't fully comply with law. Extremists on both sides put dogma above humanity.
To state religion is evil and a collective mental illness is no worse than declaring arbitrary types of human behaviour "sinful". Why should one of these have special protection?
Stating that religion is evil and a collective mental illness, could mean that in a society which is becoming increasingly secular like the UK, that knowledge of somebody being religious could lead to them being discriminated against.
I'm in favour of any advantages which religion is afforded being gradually and harmoniously reduced, but I think that given how prejudice has led to bad things in the past (and still does) that one should stop short at saying religion is evil, since 9/11 attacks on Muslims (and Jews) and their graves and places of worship have increased in the UK (for example). What have Jews got to do with terrorism? In the mind of a doofus, 'Religion is evil' is justification to verbally or physically abuse anybody who is religious in their society, and as seems to happen is a minority too.
Doofuses blend in unseen, which is why one needs to be careful.
I disagree with both positions and think both can be dangerous depending on how far they are extended but both normally fall within legal limits of freedoms of speech. Neither view gets special protection in a western democracy'. There is a difference though: the former is normally a (shallow) external critique of the religious and the latter normally a (simplistic) universal argument which is less aggressive externally as sin has no meaning if you are not religious. The militant atheist insults the belief system of the religious, the religious moderate does not do the same.
> There is a difference though: the former is normally a (shallow) external critique of the religious and the latter normally a (simplistic) universal argument which is less aggressive externally as sin has no meaning if you are not religious.
Well aside from when they try for blasphemy laws or try and reduce the level of sex education etc. I would also think its rather offensive for many gay people to be judged based on someones religious beliefs.
> The militant atheist insults the belief system of the religious, the religious moderate does not do the same.
Aside from the religious moderate insults my belief system by claiming there is a god. Or people claiming that I am missing a moral centre because I am not a member of a religion which will forgive me pretty much anything so long as I give a confession before death.
Why should someones religious belief have any more protection against insult than political beliefs? Do you want those placing on an equal pedestal of not being questioned?
How is it insulting to claim there is a God? I don’t follow that. I can see if someone said you had no morality because of a lack religion that is insulting but I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone suggesting a lack of faith = lack of morality.
Also as a “religious moderate” I don’t believe my belief system should entitle me to special protection from jokes and insults. And also I don’t think I’ve ever pushed for blasphemy laws or tried to reduce levels of sex Ed.
The problem is that concepts of "sin" or "haram" translate into behavioural norms that are foisted upon secular citizens as well.
Blasphemy laws, exemptions from sports or sexual education, public pools being women only on some evenings to cater to the Muslim crowd (which I find particularly offensive, if someone doesn't like mixed public pools they can seriously f*ck off back to Turkey or Syria), exemptions from anti discrimination rules in employment laws, the sancitity of the confessional being used to protect child abusers, a ridiculous extent of self regulation concerning child abusers...
The list is endless. I will respect religion when the first cardinal or pope goes to jail for enabling and covering up child abuse, while the same time denouncing homosexuality as sinful.
All this needs insulting, in particular because even moderate religious belief is exclusively based on some guy back whenever saw that the others in his tribe were afraid of the weather and spotted an opportunity to gain power over these ill educated masses. Religion always was and still is about social control.
This is not to say that many concepts of social organization that work well in our semi secular societies have their roots in religions.
In fact, that is exactly what I would expect from the atheist viewpoint that religion is of human origin and has evolved over time (i.e., if it failed it would have long been superseded).
I have no problem e.g. with shops in Germany being generally closed on Sundays. A fixed rest day per week is a good idea, but the justification must be that it is good for the mental and physical well being of the general population, not that someone in the bronze age smoked something unhealthy and proclaimed it as the word of god.
> How is it insulting to claim there is a God? I don’t follow that. I can see if someone said you had no morality because of a lack religion that is insulting but I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone suggesting a lack of faith = lack of morality.
Oh come on, that happens all the time!
Maybe it does and sorry if that’s your experience. You’ve not explained how my religious beliefs are insulting though?
> Maybe it does and sorry if that’s your experience. You’ve not explained how my religious beliefs are insulting though?
I think it was another person saying religious beliefs are insulting (which makes no sense to me either).
> How is it insulting to claim there is a God? I don’t follow that.
Well if a believer can claim offence why cant the atheist? Why should we consider belief in god any more protected than someones belief there isnt one. To try to do so is to claim special privilege for the believer.
> I can see if someone said you had no morality because of a lack religion that is insulting but I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone suggesting a lack of faith = lack of morality.
Really? You have never ever seen a suggestion that atheists are less moral?
Your list might well be endless but they are mostly stuff all to do with most religious people in secular society. Neo nazis and revolutionary leftists also live in our societies and don't believe in our laws. We chose to let people believe within legal limits, they would not. Militant atheism is approaching such intolerance in my view. Telling Muslims to f*ck off back to a place where they left as refugees because they don't share you view on swimming pools is just as bad as some of your list in my view. Others might use other words.
Your personal belief is not insulting, and you should be free to believe what you want. It should not matter that I think belief in a personal god is nonsense because there is no evidence for it.
However, I demand that your belief has ZERO influence on me at all. It should not be protected from ridicule or criticism in any way, there should be no laws or social conventions based on it, faith should be strictly private. Why should there even be lords clerical in the UK, or why should there be church representatives on the national bioethics council in Germany. FFS, the church is even represented on the committes tasked with selecting our nuclear waste repository!
This historic sense of entitlement is what is insulting.
To make sure that all faith issues are strictly kept private I would e.g. also ban head scarves or nuns habits outside churches/mosques or private homes, but I would conversely accept dress codes if you want to visit a church.
> Telling Muslims to f*ck off back to a place where they left as refugees because they don't share you view on swimming pools is just as bad as some of your list in my view.
Can you provide examples of the "militant atheists" saying that?
Why? They come here as refugees, which I am absolutely fine with.
However, once they are here I demand that they stick to the rules of the host country, make every effort to integrate (including immediately learning the language), and do not foist rules based on their backwards cult on the people who paid for the pools in the first place.
Wearing head scarves in public, preventing children from attending sex ed or coed school swimming lessons all are a big f*ck you to the people who took them in in their times of need.
I also have no time at all for neo nazis, however they are thankfully targeted by laws against hate speech (even more so here in Germany for obvious reasons), while religions get a free pass for their discriminatory words and practises.
> There is a difference though: the former is normally a (shallow) external critique of the religious and the latter normally a (simplistic) universal argument which is less aggressive externally as sin has no meaning if you are not religious.
It has no meaning externally but it has profound meaning to religious family members. As an example, homosexual offspring are ostracised, harassed, or worse. The person that is not religious is the receiver of the meaning assigned to sin by a religion they are potentially not following.
Let's not even start on the self-loathing that can occur when they *are* religious and the religion's teachings contradict their very being.
I did in the post above. Pools are closed due to corona now anyway, but last year my city closed the main public pool to men on Wednesday evenings to allow muslim women to swim in the absence of men.
I find this ungrateful and disrespectful to the max. We paid for the pool, we took these people in as refugees, the least we can expect is for them to play by our rules.
> Well if a believer can claim offence why cant the atheist?
So, because some religious people are illogical (in that way), you're deciding to be illogical as well?
I'm an ex Catholic* atheist, and that's about the daftest thing I've ever heard.
* Wild horses couldn't make me a Catholic again fwit.
They would be your unwritten rules would they? If they get those exemptions by definition they are legal. Do you seriously expect immediate full integration of traumatised people of a completely different cultural background? The 'backwards cult' you see is clearly more cultural than strictly religious or those more secular muslims who do take common swimming lessons wouldn't do so. I don't see Muslim extremists being exempt in German law from prosecution for hate speech.
> I find this ungrateful and disrespectful to the max. We paid for the pool, we took these people in as refugees, the least we can expect is for them to play by our rules.
Isnt the problem there the pool bending to their whim as opposed to anything else?
> So, because some religious people are illogical (in that way), you're deciding to be illogical as well?
No I was curious why Offwidth considers one to be fine and not the other.
Ah, right, it was all meant in good humour anyways, as one might talk to a friend. .
> Unless you are going for the omniscient god though it was a whole bunch of gambles.
Well he's God, so of course he's omniscient! If you created time and are hence outside of it, knowing Jesus will be/is/was the right chap to take on human form as is sort of "obvs". ;-)
If atheists women want to swim without men around them is that ok? Or do they have to f*** off back... somewhere also?
In summary of the thread.... fundamentalists of all versions are a bad thing. Moderates of all varieties welcome (and Pentecostalism is a denomination not a sect or cult.....)
Now lets pronounce it a deceased thread and move back to being fundamentalist about specific climbing styles. If a boulderer wants to trad climb with no sport climbers around she can f**k off back to Font
Is this threat missing a hectoring astrophysical voice?
> Is this threat missing a hectoring astrophysical voice?
Not sure I understand ? I've not been following very closely today.
Driving myself insane with some Arduino code mainly . Brains caught in a loop.
> Driving myself insane with some Arduino code mainly . Brains caught in a loop.
Switch out some superficial basics and you will arrive at the same place as this thread.
The problem is belief more than what is believed in, and letting Hitchens do your thinking on atheism is no better than letting Paula White or the Ayatollah do your spirituality. Trump has always outsourced his thinking, all that's his is the opinion. He entered the office knowing nothing and is leaving the same way, having only learned how to navigate the crowd of yes men that swarm to him like flies. Charlatans like this women, Alex Jones, Bannon etc simply got through because they drew his attention, probably by reflecting his own image back to him and plying him with sugar.
I doubt Trump even recognizes this women, he'd only know her in context with what he wants from her. I often believed him when he said he didn't know the various con men and fascists who were bought up on charges around him; he probably only knew them by their work. He'd have been introduced and instantly forgotten their names, skipping straight to 'the deal'. A common thing among high profile people who meet dozens of people a day I hear.
Trump doesn't do science, evidence has no currency with him. He may be a vacant atheist simply by not ever thinking about religious beliefs, but he's in the Mao style, substituting conspiracy and nationalism instead. Like Mao etc he's not interested in solutions, he's interested in gratification.
probably worth counting up deaths from the Abrahamic God as recorded in the Bible vs deaths from Satan in the Bible (guess who wins, and that's not including the deluge - in which the entire world population is killed less Noah- for those who don't know the story).
As for killing 'in Jesus' name'- probably worth thinking about the percentage of the world population killed in assorted pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, conversions over the centuries. All done by good Christian men (much like Atlantic slavery, other varieties were / are available).
I think the common factor in mass killings is ideological violence. Killing in order to save souls from eternal damnation on the one hand - or for the downfall of capitalist imperialism on the other.
who is the "we"? (as in "we payed for them"- the baths)
funnily enough the good (nice white and very English) ladies of Hampstead and Highgate have their own ladies swimming ponds. But have been very upset by the arrival of trans-gendered women, including some with testicles etc.
So it's not just the brown people you know.
> They would be your unwritten rules would they? If they get those exemptions by definition they are legal.
Still to be determined
>Do you seriously expect immediate full integration of traumatised people of a completely different cultural background?
Absolutely. I expect them to attend language courses, and in particular, to not prevent wifes and daughters from doing so. I also would expect them not force their wifes and daughters to walk three steps behind them. I would tie benefits to fully participating in normal school and social life. If they don't like it, they could have gone to another Muslim country instead.
To be fair, especially with refugees from Syria, the majority try very hard to integrate, and my criticism is addressed to a noisy minority.
> The 'backwards cult' you see is clearly more cultural than strictly religious or those more secular muslims who do take common swimming lessons wouldn't do so.
It is still religious and not tolerable in 21st century Europe. Take our culture and standards, written or unwritten with the protection from persecution, or go elsewhere. Cherry picking is inacceptable
> I don't see Muslim extremists being exempt in German law from prosecution for hate speech.
Religions of all flavour continuously get away with both hate speech and active discrimination (e.g. against women or homosexuals). Imagine a political party arguing that all jobs with decision making power as well as active and passive voting rights should be reserved for men, and that homosexuality should be made illegal....
The German tax payer.
That is just as wrong.
Also, I don't have anything against "brown people" even if you try to insinuate that. The majority of my colleagues are international, mainly from other European countries and from China, but also from Muslim countries (currently from Bosnia, Syria, Iran, and Mali).
I am interested in Syrian and Persian cuisine, and enjoy Islamic architecture and art.
I do, however, disagree with individuals or groups having special rights based on the lunacy of some bronze age (or early medieval) set of superstitions.
Who would have waded into a religious discussion in the time before he was banished to the howling outer darkness?
> Not sure I understand ? I've not been following very closely today.
They can do so in their own pool, I would not allow it in a publicly financed one.
They should also not be allowed to have a women's only swimming club, or at least not receive public funding.
Equality cuts both ways, even if society wide male only clubs are certainly still a bigger issue.
> I am interested in Syrian and Persian cuisine, and enjoy Islamic architecture and art.
Best food going. If people new the Iranians by their food I think we could avert conflict them.
> Who would have waded into a religious discussion in the time before he was banished to the howling outer darkness?
I think I'm now getting you .
Off to research the banishing .
Not who I thought .
Intrigued now .
I'm not here defending the masses of terrible things done in the name of religion despite modern secular western protections. Non religious people commit similar levels of crime and moral nastiness. Deal with those issues, don't act like a zealot and blanket blame everyone religious. Would you say refugees are not welcome if they are homophobic and likely to emotionally damage homosexual family members... given most would face worse homophobia and way more serious consequences back in their country of origin?
The clue is in the part that reads "... before he was banished to the howling outer darkness?".
I take it as a clear reference to Carlos Tevez, and that time when he transferred from Man Utd to Man City.
I know! I started out with cooking lots of Indian stuff (and still do), but have recently turned to Iranian dishes. The meat dishes are good, but the deserts are something else!
Quite a few of the Syrian refugees have opened small delis and food stores, so finally you can buy middle eastern spices in a decent diversity and quality even in small town Germany!
However, the Iranian spice stall in the Frankfurt market hall beats everything else I have ever seen in Germany.
Until it is determined it's legal. Dealing with things fairly within the law is one of the key differences we have with theocracies.
There is a big difference between immediate integration and refusal to comply with any attempts at integration. Its simply inhumane to expect refugees to throw away ingrained beliefs when they enter a western democracy.
I can imagine that political party as it's what is being said on the Republican fringes. It's why over emphasis on individual freedoms like freedom of speech and belief are dangerous and why the EU is a much better society than the US. We have a lot of areas where we could improve and where the religious push back (mainly the catholic church).
In the UK this major scandal only hit the headlines briefly (and the Vatican defended the cardinal):
> I know! I started out with cooking lots of Indian stuff (and still do), but have recently turned to Iranian dishes. The meat dishes are good, but the deserts are something else!
> Quite a few of the Syrian refugees have opened small delis and food stores, so finally you can buy middle eastern spices in a decent diversity and quality even in small town Germany!
> However, the Iranian spice stall in the Frankfurt market hall beats everything else I have ever seen in Germany.
How's your tadig?
I love the flavours in Persian food, saffron, pomegranate, rose, pistachio. The dried lemons are incredible. If you've not yet, try making Fesenjan or the walnut pomegranate chicken, really easy and like nothing else. There's some great websites about as you likely already know. We would eat my Persian attempts at least twice a week.
I recall great Iranian places all over Germany. Having spent some time in Iran, telling the owners that without failed ended up with lunch and cups of tea. These people are too busy eating and talking football to give a shit about fighting.
Armenian and Georgian food is also very, very good. Quite different.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
> Its simply inhumane to expect refugees to throw away ingrained beliefs when they enter a western democracy.
They can believe whatever they want, but they have to accept IMMEDIATELY that they cannot necessarily act on these beliefs. The Quran or Hadith is no basis at all for anything.
If you decide that your life is threatened and you therefore seek protection in a Western democracy it is only fair to expect that you IMMEDIATELY agree to play by the rules of your democracy, both written and unwritten. I don't give a f*ck if your ingrained belief tells you that cannot shake hands with women, or take orders from women (e.g. a good friend who teaches German for asylum seekers). If these are your beliefs, you should have gone to Saudi Arabia or one of the Gulf monarchies. Here, this is simply not on. And don't tell me it is culture not religion!
Just taking the protection and expecting that the host society bows to the whims of your iron age cult is taking the piss. I would happily deport anyone who tries to tell me something we do in Europe was "haram".
Again, that is a minority of the Syrian refugees, and German convertites are often much worse.
That's your opinion not the legal position of western governments. There is no such condition on emergency refugee status.
Fesenjan was the first Persian recipe I tried. We have a good source for chicken, so that is now on our "chicken rotation" together with Caribbean jerk chicken with rice and peas, Balti chicken and Naanmand a buch of side dishes, and an Israeli recipe for Lemon chicken!
Wrong. It is the law that you cannot discriminate agains women by refusing to shake hands (at least it is here) and people will sometimes get sacked or have their benefits cut if they refuse to deal politely according to Westerns standards with women in superior positions.
Unfortunately the enforcement is much too lax, and should rather quickly include revocation of the asylum status and deportation (which it could, in principle, as a refusal to integrate already, but is rarely applied). We have enough religious nutters of our own, no need to import additional ones!
Let me be clear, I do not single out one particular religion for this, or all religious people, and in fact I am not talking about zealotry that results in actual crimes being committed. Those crimes are already illegal. I am just challenging the idea that religions treating standard human behaviour as sin is a victimless crime when it comes to people outside that religion. There are multiple reasons for which that is not true, and that is even if we ignore the political power exerted by groups like the evangelicals in the USA.
I think this might be what you're looking for:
Eating the world! Excellent stuff. It's very hard to want to kill people when you sit and share their food.
> I think this might be what you're looking for:https://www.ukclimbing.com/user/profile.php?id=9939
I see .
I think it's quite normal in the UK. Do women not have the right to use public facilities with out fearing men looking at them or worse?
No. It should be normal to have both men and women using a public pool (separate showers, toilets and changing rooms goes without saying). By all means, kick out any men ogling the women or harassing them in any way. Again, locally this has predominantly been an issue with a minority of muslim refugees.
Again your opinion. Some scheduled female only swimming sessions in public pools are the norm in the UK due in part to determined liberal feminsts.
I wasn't talking about handshaking trivia or swimming pool trivia for refugees. If refugee requirements are German law as you claim, and not you opinion, you can easily link the law.
To be clear on my semantics I'd see that as immoral or illegal, influenced by religious belief. It cant be sin if the individual affected doesn't believe. I fully agree religious people in western democracies do a lot of damage to other religious people and to non believers (including family) due to their idiotic concepts of sin. Yet non religious people are also often guilty of similar levels of damage for other ideological or moralistic reasons. The UK is majority non religious these days so we have plenty of evidence of that. The common factor is people abusing power over others.
Not merely my opinion, there have been several court cases finding muslim employees refusing to shake hands with female colleagues in breach of their duties, and similar cases concerning parents and female teachers. A bit pointless in corona times, though.
I would accept if an city council made a secular / feminist argument for having women only sessions (even though I still disagree, but if the majority elected councillors who think otherwise....).
What I will not accept is if the same decision is arrived at with reference to some religious dumbf*ckery, especially of the imported kind (as happened here, it was argued that the presence of men would exclude muslim women from using the pool. Well, bad f*cking luck). The privileges and opt outs our own established religions enjoy are perverse enough.
I don't care or respect what the Quran says about mixed swimming sessions, it must not have any influence on my life in 21st century Europe. Obviously, any time I visit an Islamic country I have to follow the local rules concerning e.g. dress codes for visiting mosques, same as I respect the rules if I visit the house of a Jewish or Muslim colleague.
I don't believe you: for such a case someone must have been in Germany for some time and have been warned repeatedly in work. How about some examples from new refugees from Syria etc, whom you blamed, rather than established refuseniks (in the meantime you seem little better than the refuseniks with your blanket intolerance on display here).
Tell me why politics based on religion merit tolerance?
Why does it go without saying that there are separate changing rooms but not separate swimming times for those who more comfortable that way?
Funnily our local swimming pool doesn't have separate changing rooms, just cubicles. But I think it does have a women's evening session I think.
Cubicles are private, so no issue there. I am sure the showers are separate, though.
As I said, if people here want to offer separate swimming times for women I still disagree but will have to accept it.
For someone to come here, accept our help and benefits, and to then argue that their religion prevents them from swimming in the presence of men and therefore we have to set aside pool times to accomodate their religious nuttery is an affront that should be rejected out of principle.
I'm not sure what I am wrong about.
The are ladies only swimming ponds on Hampstead Heath and there have been for years.- FACT
They are frequented (almost exclusively) by nice white English ladies (I went out with one - a long time ago)- FACT
There have been upsets regards the use of these facilities by transwomen- FACT
So it is not just brown people.- FACT
Funnily enough a new member of staff came to my work a years or so ago and would not shake my hand (she was muslim). I was shocked and contacted the UK National Secular Society- (she was obviously born and bred in the UK).
Also- it is normal (and has been for decades) to have women only swimming (in the UK). FACT
In the UK the chief Rabbi does not shake hands with the Queen (his superior at work- in the House of Lords) - just in case she is menstruating. FACT.
Apart from Iran (I like middle eastern cooking too). The UK is the only other country in the world to have clerics as part of the legislature by right (the Lords Spiritual - particular Anglican Bishops). It is also one of the few counties in the world where the head of state is appointed- by (the Abrahamic) God.
I'm surprised that you don't think that there are muslim taxpayers in Germany- or that there aren't German women who'd like women only swimming.
It is also odd that in Germany people pay a religious tax- and so public money is by law then distributed to your registered religious group. And then used for religiously discriminatory purposes (in the UK public money is used in this way for education). My understanding is that in Germany in religiously affiliated hospitals it is very difficult to get a permanent medical job / progress unless you are the right religion (so says my brother-in-law's brother-in -aw who is a medic at a Catholic run hospital in Germany and who pays a religious tax, but is actually an atheist (like me)- but has not changed to avoid upsetting his father, mind you we were both very pissed when he explained this to me).
I do not oppose women's swimming hours as such, but I do resent their introduction specifically to cater for the superstitions of recently arrived refugees as has happened here. This is a blatant refusal to integrate, and a sense of entitlement that pisses me off. But let´s leave it at that, this discussion leads nowhere.
I knew about most of your examples, and they just highlight what is wrong with the way religion gets exceptions from all kinds of rules. The one I did not know about was the Chief Rabbi one. This demonstrates first of all the perverse discrimination built into religion: Why should any person or instution be allowed to consider women to be in some way unclean or inferior because of the way the human estral cycle has evolved? Secondly it shows the stupidity of the dogmatic religionists. One look should tell the Rabbi that he would presumably be safe from contamination in Lizzie's case!
What your BIL says about Germany is pretty much true. This is one of the examples of the exemptions from laws applying to everyone else that church led institutions enjoy. Fortunately I am not the only one to think this is completely wrong, and several cases before the German constitutional court and the ECJ have recently established that confession and adherence to a "Christian lifestyle" can only be taken into account for a limited number of positions at these hospitals. One case e.g. was about a catholic hospital sacking a doctor following his divorce and civil remarriage, which was deemed to be irrelevant as the doctor did not fulfil a spritual role.
Progress of sorts, but much too slow for my taste!
> I am sure the showers are separate, though.
No they're not, you just keep your swimming cossie on - or get some pretty funny looks if your don't.
> As I said, if people here want to offer separate swimming times for women I still disagree but will have to accept it.
I'm not sure the logic of saying you'll accept it for some women's sense of comfort but not for others? So if a religious Muslim woman said she didn't want to swim around me because she felt really uncomfortable being watched by men - you'd accept that, but if she says her religion teaches that it would be immodest to be in the presence of men while in a state of semi-undress then that's unacceptable "religious nuttery"?
I hope the handshake is a thing of the past even post covid! Horrible culture of having to grab someone's sweaty hand while pretending it's a pleasant thing. Better than the French greeting of a kiss though!
I have adopted the hand on heart as a greeting. I believe actually a Muslim business women's greeting. Nice and respectful, covid safe and just much more pleasant! I could go with a namaste type greeting too.
I've met a number of Muslim women who explained they don't shake hands with men, but the first time I came across this the woman instead used the hand on heart, and a little bow to me! This was new to me then, and maybe caused me 4 seconds of embarrassment for having tried to shake her hand. But as soon as she explained (in lovely way) and then we started talking about other things, it was one of those total "no skin off my nose" kind of things. She doesn't want to shake my hand - well fine, no big deal. You have to really want to make a thing of these things in order to make a thing of these things don't you think!?
> Apart from Iran (I like middle eastern cooking too). The UK is the only other country in the world to have clerics as part of the legislature by right (the Lords Spiritual - particular Anglican Bishops). It is also one of the few counties in the world where the head of state is appointed- by (the Abrahamic) God.
Excellent point re Iran and the UK having clerics in government by law, though Iran does make the attempt to separate them from secular government (which is full of clerics supposedly not in a clerical role). They also implement having representatives of all the religions they recognize, not just the state religion, indeed they are the only country to decree Jewish seats in government (Israel obviously not needing to). So one might say, in theory at least, Iran has a more inclusive religious element in government then the UK.
Point two, is that Iranian cuisine doesn't really come under Middle eastern, having more in common with sub-continental, Black Sea and the Caspian. Cooking methods and seasonal variety (including celebration foods) are significantly different, and within Iran itself food from the Arab and Levant states is recognized as such, as is Turkish cuisine. Iranians often view their cuisine by ethnic, religious or festival associations, ie Azeri, Zoroastrian, Now Ruz etc. Apologies for being pedantic here but an old partner has done a Phd on the subject and would be furious if I were to not clarify the matter - there's links to national pride involved.
There's a lot of muslim men who don't shake hands too, instead doing the hand on the heart followed by a double kiss. In many places shaking hands as we know it is viewed as a tacit 'western' habit lacking sincerity.
I like the hand on heart gesture. Saves the awkwardness when someone tries to out alpha male you with a vice like knuckle destroying grip. I’ve always enjoyed the softness of handshakes of Kenyans/Ethiopians where there was no attempt to assert dominance through the greeting.
> No they're not, you just keep your swimming cossie on - or get some pretty funny looks if your don't.
Here they are to enable proper hygiene in the shower.
> I'm not sure the logic of saying you'll accept it for some women's sense of comfort but not for others? So if a religious Muslim woman said she didn't want to swim around me because she felt really uncomfortable being watched by men - you'd accept that, but if she says her religion teaches that it would be immodest to be in the presence of men while in a state of semi-undress then that's unacceptable "religious nuttery"?
Pretty much. If they don't like living a secular society they can really f*ck off to the kind of backwards society they seem to prefer. Unfortunately there is wide choice of such countries.
It is simply not acceptable that any imported religious f*ckwittery should in any way impinge on the people living in a country extending protection to refugees. The guests / refugees not the hosts should be the ones to adapt.
The exemptions for our own religions are bad enough, having to change our way of life even minimally to cater to a religion that is obviously made up nonsense on par with Scientology or Mormonism and has no roots in our culture is in my eyes not remotely on.
Fine with me, as long as the people in question accept that in Europe a woman has the same value as a man, and may often be in a position to give them orders, be that as a boss, teacher, policewoman or judge, and is entitled to some pre-agreed sign of respect.
Unfortunately this is a concept that is very hard to bang into the heads of certain young muslim men, even ones born here second or third generation.
Unfortunately this is a concept that is very hard to bang into the heads of certain young men, even ones born here 20th or thirtieth generation.
> Plenty of secular European men are misogynists
That doesn't seem a very good reason to encourage it.
Unfortunately true, but ask a female teacher in Berlin how easy it is for her to get some muslim father to do something about their children misbehaving in school!
Many simply do not accept that a woman teacher can order their first born son around.
Our society would be better off without such attitudes that are clearly derived from religion, and if it is not possible to get these people to drop these attitudes, then without these people.
Show me some evidence of 5th let alone 20th generation UK Muslims acting this way. You are just making shit up. The majority of modern extremism stems back to the west supporting medievalist Islamic regimes like the Saudis for the sake of oil, or fighting immoral wars. In particular Saudi funding of worldwide promulgation of Wahhabism, with help from US internet megacorps disinterested in blocking hate, has blighted the planet. The Saudis are allies of the US the UK and Europe. We also make a lot of money from arms sales to the Saudis some of which are used in Yemen.
Some versions of Islam are terrible for the world but blaming the whole religion when it has many more moderate forms (especially in multi-generational western families) just helps the extremists. There are terrible versions of most major religions. The catholocism of the latest US Supreme Court female appointee states the superiority of men over women.
I don’t think that’s in response to me.
The CIA printing 2 million copies of the Quran for distribution in the Pakistan tribal areas and Afghanistan in the early 80s to nurture the emerging Mujaheddin resistance against the Russians, and to later help them out with Stinger manpads and other toys, must be one of the cunning plans in recent politics that backfired most spectacularly.
I also have no idea why we still allow the King Fahd academy in Bonn to exist, no.1 training schools for extremist imams in Germany and all round jihadist propaganda centre.
> Pretty much. If they don't like living a secular society they can really f*ck off to the kind of backwards society they seem to prefer. Unfortunately there is wide choice of such countries.
You just seem to be saying that when non Muslim women say 'we would like A', that's ok (or at least magnanimously, you would "have to accept it") because they're not Muslim. But when Muslim women say 'we would also like A' (beyond telling them to "f*ck off"), that's not OK because they're Muslim.
The responsibilities of signatory countries to the 1951 refugee convention are fortunately (for refugees at least) not quite as conditional as you would seem to like!
No, I oppose in very general terms that you can demand respect for any old bullshit "because faith", and get exceptions from rules that apply to anyone else. This is embrassing in the 21st century, and what we certainly do not need is to import more of that nonsense, especially if it in any way changes the way we live.
Tonight there is a rally in Hamburg organized by an Islamic cultural society demanding "respect for the prophet Mohammed".
WTF? I demand respect for the principle of freedom of expression in a society that has managed to escape the intellectual shackles of the church through a struggle lasting centuries. I certainly do not want to regress to the standards of a religion (or societies shaped by that religion) that was rather modern 1000 years ago but has since failed to have its own age of enlightment and instead enjoys a Wahhabi and IS revival of early medieval idiocy.
I will believe that religious Muslims are willing to integrate into our modern society the day I see mosques displaying the Charlie Hebdo caricatures. The insincere expressions of solidarity spouted by Muslim leaders after each monthly Islamist massacre get a bit stale, especially when followed by polite requests to repect their bullshit religion and stop being blasphemous. The prophet Mohammed can f*ck right off.
That the treatment we as the West give to Muslims world wide is absolutely unfair does not change that.
I am ashamed of the political support our governments show for the oppression of Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories, our active military support for the war crimes commited by the Saudis in Yemen, our favouring of the Saudi head choppers against the Iranians (essentially taking sides in the age old Shia/Sunni conflict to divide and rule and grab the oil on the cheap), and our silence over the fate of the Uighurs being ethnically cleansed in China.
Have we mentioned the Prosperity Gospel thing, yet?
I know all that, but climb down of your high horse for a mo' if you don't mind, because I still don't get why some women swimming on their own is acceptable, but for other women it isn't.
I generally don't think it is a good idea to have women only or men only clubs or sessions, especially in public pools.
If this is a democratic decision by our city council I have to accept that, and I even have some degree of sympathy for a feminist argument for such sessions.
To use a religious argument (the Quran says men and women must be separated) to justify exactly the same thing is, in contrast, completely unacceptable. If, as has happened, my city council accepts that religious argument and introduces swimming sessions specifically to offer muslim women a time slot where they can swim without teh presence of men, I will continue to agitate and argue against that.
To me, this is wrong in principle. No religion, and in particular not one that is not part of our history and culture and therefore has some argument from tradition, should be allowed to influence the remainder of the society I live in.
For the same reason I would ban wearing burkas or even islamic head scarves (or catholic nun's habits) in public. These clothes are all a big f*ck you to society, indicating that the wearer places their religion above the rules of a modern, secular, enlightened society that it is at least striving for equality for women and men.
Anyway, I don't think we should further discuss this further, as we are going in circles since some time. The OP anyway was about out a person with powerful influence on the current US president "speaking in tongues" or at least faking it. No idea which is worse.
Something, however, has been bugging me since I saw that clip on CNN. It reminded me of something, but I did not realize what that was until cycling to work this morning:
Agreed we are drifting off topic. The ultra conservative catholic and extreme evangelical influence on the Republicans is terrifying. In Europe the Catholic church political influence vastly exceeds the Islamic. It is civilised in a modern democracy to call out the bad in religion without blaming all of the well behaved religious citizens.
When catholic cathedrals have a compulsory cartoon of the pope's (discretely depicted) buggering by satan on their doors, I'll agree to consider the hebdo suggestion. Freedom of speech never meant forced rubbing of religious noses in shit. The hebdo cartoon is classic religious satire but such satire on TV would normally be after a watershed. It was shown censored in mainsteam UK newspapers; to the horror of some (who think they live under some deluded American fantasy land of individual freedoms). Try and find anything even mildly controversial in an image in a mainstream popular US newspaper, let alone on daytime standard TV channels. The most explicit content will normally be something like a perfume advert.
Some timely self satire from the Saudi ambassador to the US:
"The country’s most senior diplomat, its US ambassador Reema Bandar Al Saud, used a keynote speech this week to send a message to the incoming Biden administration. She said her country was America’s greatest ally in the fight against extremism and terrorism and claimed that some Saudi critics, by contrast, “just want to burn it all down”. Reprising buzzword claims about the country’s Vision 2030 project, she said her country was an inclusive society committed to gender equity.
“Some critics cling to outdated, outmoded and completely obsolete views of the Kingdom,” al-Saud said. “We recognise we need to do a better job at correcting an inaccurate and distorted view of the kingdom. When we are challenged on human rights we need to better explain that progress does not happen overnight, change is incremental, progress is not a straight line, but a curve, and the bend of the curve is towards equity.”
She may be right, but even a hint by her brother Khalid – the UK ambassador – that a case could be made for clemency for some of the country’s imprisoned women ahead of the G20 was disowned."
> These clothes are all a big f*ck you to society,
Or perhaps they just like wearing hats.
Should t-shirts with the slogan "f*ck you Society!" on them be banned at the same time? If not, why not - if that's what you object to with a hijab?
good point about the food. It is delicious as well. We went to a fantastic restaurant on Westbourne Grove- huge clay oven in the doorway with a chef just doing bread. Not only delicious- but the portions were also enormous.
In the biblical account relating to speaking in tongues people from various nations can all understand when they are being preached to by the apostles. Whereas when these "evangelicals" are preaching in tongues it's just utter drivel. Just another example of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome: only the pure of heart can hear it.
I am a Christian but when I've encountered this jibberish in the past it's made me want to run screaming from the church. Genuinely frightening.
> good point about the food. It is delicious as well. We went to a fantastic restaurant on Westbourne Grove- huge clay oven in the doorway with a chef just doing bread. Not only delicious- but the portions were also enormous.
Making bread in the door must be the second oldest form of advertising a business, a good honest system it seems to me.
Most of the Persian places I know do Saturday night buffets with dancing etc, which are community cultural events more than cheesy marketing, not at all like what family restaurants have turned the buffet into. Very social and not unlike the Jewish shabat (though no propaganda to sit through before you eat). Well recommended. I think if more folks could experience Iranian culture and see how far it is from the media portrayal which makes it out to be some sort of fundamentalist hell they'd be very surprised. Stylish people eating stylish food and dancing together.
The good side of Iranophobia is these great restaurants haven't be turned into greasy after-the-pub drop ins for hooligans.
Another timely article on the Saudis. They claim they will stop death sentences for children but there seems to be an exemption for mandated sentences under Sharia law. Lets hope Biden adds pressure for faster change.
It is abhorrent that we count these as our countries friends and allies.
I've had the pleasure of meeting many Iranians/Persians and found them welcoming, hospitable and reasonable people. The current Iranian regime - not so much. Not unlike Americans and Trump.
Yes very much, though perhaps I'd argue the regime functions better than Trump ever did; they have usually clearer elections and the moderates do a better job of keeping the lunatics in check. Considering Iran's neighbourhood, not an easy job.
I've long felt - in a good way - the Iranians are the most like us as far as the region goes. Middle class stability is the mundane agenda of much of their domestic policy. Set back in the middle of a volatile region they do OK, in spite of factions in their own state not always helping.
Henry Rollins, I think, had the right idea, of over-throwing the theocratic element by smuggling in Ramones albums.
Pointless and potentially untrue 'fact'; Iran and Scotland are the only countries where Coke isn't the #1 selling drink. Scotland has Irn Bru, and Iran a not dissimilar drink with the unfortunate name of Arso. I wonder if they want a UK distributor?
That is my point. Yet some people prefer to attack good law abiding citizens when the real problem lies with giving our governments a free pass to support such dangerous medieval regimes. The Saudis have put around $10billion into poisoning Islam across the world and much more than that into supporting terrorism.
The 2020 Kendal Film Awards were held on Saturday night, hosted by Kendal Mountain Festival's resident Jury Chairman Keme Nzerem and a panel of judges. This year's festival had a record 400 entries from both professional and amateur filmmakers; a...